An Open letter to Jim Robinson: Can the Bush-Bashers

Ok, if you say so. Time will tell who is correct.

FReegards

It's a personal attack; nothing more ... nothing less, and a crude , LIBERAL tactic.

I agree with that summation when you can conclude that the driving motive of the attacker amounts to 'destroy Bush' -- but in this case the 'customer dissatisfaction' is IN HOUSE. In short, as long as a person [A] voted for Bush, and [B] is expressing sincere dissatisfaction, it is encumbant on Bush and the Republican Party to address the situation once it gets to the degree that it has apparently achieved.

The 'Well, other than that he's a good President' is a Clintonian deflection. Those who support Bush have every right and responsibility to keep an accurate tab on performance and to vocalize thier dissapproval in accordance to its intensity.

Feedback.

Tell me whom YOU favor / agree with and I'll find a name to call you , to vent MY ire. Fair is fair, after all. NO ?

Im not an elected official, hence my concern over your opinion or degree of irritation is non-existant. On the other hand, if you can present good arguments against a stance I hold, I welcome the opportunity to review and test the integrity of what I've come to believe.

If your giving away cake, feces is not a good topping, BUT if the cake you PURCHASED has ingredients that leave a bad taste in your mouth -- it is in the bakers interest to know exactly how you feel.

The devils on 9/11 violated laws already on the books such as: laws against murder, laws against hijacking, laws against taken hostages, laws against theft, laws against destruction of property, so, can you tell me why we needed new laws? Also, have you read section 802 of the new law?
You know, of course, it has no sunset provision as other parts of the act do?

Heavens no. My focus does include the 'lying liberal infrastructural', but I don't agree that it is the 'behemoth' that some/many make it out to be.

I've taken college courses recently. For an example, the instructors force you to write that our nation is racist because there is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison. If you don't put that on paper, you fail. It is the behemoth and it is full of lies and the college students do eat it up. The networks are liberally biased, Hollywood is liberally biased and excessively so. Most people get their political views from Leno and Letterman, not Fox News or the Wall Street Journal.

I believe it is more like a bully, that is in fact a shallow coward that can be readily defeated if one simply stands up. It needs to be slain and can be slain, but the knights don't seem to want to pick up the sword, they seem to prefer to offer sacrifices.

No, they prefer to beat up members of our own team.

I blame the likes of Trent Lott for leading the retreat, for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I agree with Ann Coulter's characterization of the Republican Party (she was speaking of the leadership) as the 'Stupid Party'.

Yes I know you do. And you are part of a majority of conservatives who can't see the problem that the liberal media and education poses for us. Your way is not working and has not worked. The evidence is clear. We have been moving toward socialism even since 1980, with Reagan as president. This 22 year effort of people like you to only elect conservatives and offer no other help is not enough. And you refuse to even acknowledge that there is a big problem. We will continue to slide toward socialism. Look at this thread. BobJ and myself are the only two that even seem to be aware of the problems that the liberal power structure poses for our cause. Everyone else is arguing over miracles or lack thereof.

I believe (as you seem too) that many of us in fly-over country would readily support a forceful conservative position as espoused by Gingrich's contract with America. And we common folk, at the grass roots levels are voting with our dollars and feet as well. Liberal publications and TV is losing reader/viewership, public schools are losing to private/home schools.

But it's not enough. Liberals will simply subsidize themselves when they can't compete, like they have in art.

We sent those freshman Republicans and the Contract with America to Washington. My view is 'we out here' are waiting for 'them in the beltway' to pick up the damn sword, get in the game, and catch up.

A football team needs an offensive line. You people are like fans at a football stadium. You send out your team with a good quarterback (Bush), a good runningback (our representatives), good receivers (our Governers), a good tight End (our Senators), but no offensive line (which is the power of any football team, media and education support), and then get angry when the team is thrown for losses when they're on offense. You demand that players be changed, but the team will never win without a decent offensive line.

I believe had Lott, et al, had more gumption and stuck to principles and conservative positions and stood up to the shallow bullying media (as well as lib-dems), and enforced the laws (such as voter fraud), then Bush would have his landslide, he could be more conservative, and you and I wouldn't be having this debate, stimulating and edifying as it is :-)

I believe that the liberals overran the media and universities in the 60s for a reason, because they know that's where the power lies. We will never halt the march toward socialism until we balance the field in these two areas.

I agree. But I think where we might differ, is my conviction that the Republican Party, under leadership of Lott, et al, abandoned many of us more conservative members, in a futile and needless effort to win voters from the left of the electorate in acquiesence to the 'behemoth' media, an acquiesence I've been arguing was not needed, that persistent adherence to principles and law enforcement (impeachment, voteing, treason, etc) would suffice.

As Libertarians and Buchananites are so painfully aware, you have to win to effect change. Blindly sticking to principals in politics will quickly put you on the outside looking in with no voice at all. Our government is built on compromise. We have to compromise way too much in government because we refuse to fight the fight to take back media and education.

What seems to happen here in this forum, is that the more ardent Bush supporters, don't agree (or are unaware) that perhaps the 'behemoth' can be defeated, and advocate what to me seems an accomodation to the 'behemoth'. When those of us who argue that there are many voters who would support the party and president if it would confront the 'behemoth' more and return to the principles of Gingrich, the Contract with America, Reagan, etc, we are told were being naive or disloyal, to foresake our values, and continue to support the Republican Party as is (which to me means more of Lott's feckless leadership)....and that pushes hot buttons.

Gingrich did confront the behemoth in the budget battle, and was quickly destroyed even after saving this country for a time. He couldn't do it alone, and conservatives would rather complain than fight the fight that needs to be fought.

Poet wrote:

Also, have you read section 802 of the new law? You know, of course, it has no sunset provision as other parts of the act do?

Obviously the intent is for these provisions to remain permanently as federal crimes.

I'm a retired cop.

The last six years of my career I was the division commander in charge of the major investigations division — that's detectives among other things — of a fair-sized urban police department.

I can say from experience that no American law enforcement agency of any size has enough resources to handle the bona fide crimes occurring in its jurisdiction much less to go snooping around in the affairs of the average poor schlub innocently going about his day to day business.

Don't worry, it'll all be OK.

Are you saying that hijacking airplanes b-4 9/11 was only a state crime and not a federal crime or any of the other crimes they committed? They did cross state lines.

You know, one of the biggest lies is: I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you?

Also, you are asking me not to worry about an organization (the FBI) who gave 1,500+ files to the clintons, the Fbi who had a spy in their ranks for 20+ years and didn't know it, the same FBI who just had an sent to prison for aiding and abetting the whitey bulger gang, the same FBI who were involved in Ruby Ridge, the same FBI who were involved in Waco. And you're telling me not to worry everything will be alright?

You're suggesting I not worry about black helmeted, black suited, black booted thugs involved in the obscene taking of Elian Gonzalez under the guise of law!

I may not have to worry about the people in power now, but, what about future thugs who obtain power. That's what so dangerous about section 802.

I'll be watchful and I'll worry, thank you.

FReegards

P.S. At least you omitted the insults on this reply and I applaud you for that.

Pseudo-intellectualism, especially when couched in tiresome and lengthy academic lingo works in academic environments and on college campuses where such tripe impresses the uninformed and inexperienced, but not the informed and experienced. Furthermore, this is juvenile and once again, tedious and boring. That you and some others post in this manner shows your value of form over substance, wherein the gist of important issues is lost in worthless, infinite regressional verbiage. When you become owner of this site, you can ban anyone you wish until everyone is a carbon copy of your own ideology. If this site were to impose the insane and ludicrous blueprint you endorse for quality and content, I will never be back, nor will legions of others. Unless this is your perview, I don't really give a rat's ass what you "think" about my or anyone else's literary skills or technique.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Excellent post (#824)!

P.S. Good morning :-)

After all, there IS a pom pom page that tracks, in photos, every day of the Cult Icon's life.

There is? Does it have the pictures of him helping fight the forest fire? You know, the ones where he looks so studly with the shovel or ax or somethin'.

I think some of us are in danger of becoming "endangered species" :-)

"You voted Republican in 2000. Good. That means your vote was used against the Democrats and their agenda. If you don't vote for Republicans in 2002 or 2004 it's the same as adding a vote to the Democratic candidate. Just be comfortable that by not voting Republican YOU advance the RAT agenda."

My vote for a Republican in 2000 got me a president who's seemingly doing his best to advance the Rat agenda (only slower than the RATS themselves would). Unless Bush screws his head on straight and starts advancing the conservative agenda we were led to believe he would, it makes no difference who I vote for...Coke or Pepsi, either way you're getting cola. One's a little sweeter than the other is all.

Scouts Ot! Cavalry Ho!

My vote for a Republican in 2000 got me a president who's seemingly doing his best to advance the Rat agenda (only slower than the RATS themselves would). Unless Bush screws his head on straight and starts advancing the conservative agenda we were led to believe he would, it makes no difference who I vote for...Coke or Pepsi, either way you're getting cola. One's a little sweeter than the other is all.

Would Gore have voted for tax cuts, moved Star Wars into development, gone into Afghanistan with the same gusto as Bush, pulled out of the ABM treaty, pulled out of the ICC, canned funding for abortions overseas, put Ashcroft in as AG, etc. etc. etc.? Stop listening to Rush so much.

"Would Gore have voted for tax cuts, moved Star Wars into development, gone into Afghanistan with the same gusto as Bush, pulled out of the ABM treaty, pulled out of the ICC, canned funding for abortions overseas, put Ashcroft in as AG, etc. etc. etc.? Stop listening to Rush so much."

Would a conservative trample on the First Amendment (CFR), the Fourth Amendment (USA "Patriot" Act and new powers to FBI/CIA), expand the federal government (Federal Transportation Security Department, Department of Homeland Security, growth of social spending that outpaces even Comrade Klinton), continue to support illegal aliens in their unending push to subvert our laws and break into our country, bringing God knows who and what (drugs/terrorists/weapons/bio-chem agents, etc.) with them (Support of 245i and putting that moron Ziglar in charge of INS), and wimp out and cave to the scumbag liberals in Congress at every opportunity by not using his veto power? What's with this stupid Socialist prescription drug benefit that he's wanted ever sicne the campaign anyway? Is that a conservative idea? I could go on and name countless Klinton EOs that should've been overturned, but I guess to dfo so just wouldn't fit in with Bush's "new tone", would it?.

What flavor is the Bush Kool-Aid today? Is Bush Pepsi and Gore Coke, or vice versa? Excuse me, gotta go. Rush is on...at least he hasn't waffled for the eco-nuts on global warming!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Rush is on...at least he hasn't waffled for the eco-nuts on global warming!

Ahh, but Rush does waffle back and forth by bashing Bush some days and supporting him on others. Undoubtly Rush will support him on 2004 as well. Will you waffle too?